@ClutchFan1971 Its not just Obama, the democrats, or even the republicans. Its steady corruption picking away at the original structure of checks and balances, and the defined role of government has been so warped (by BOTH sides) that people, nor politicians understand what it means to govern.
The Laffer curve demonstrates there is a sweet spot in marginal tax rates (that would be the rate on the most productive taxpayers aka the weathy) where the gov't maximizes its income.
The Bush tax cuts come pretty close to that sweet spot. Govt revenue went up afterwards and the top 5 and 10 percent who benefitted the most now pay a higher percentage of the overall income tax revenue.
"Soaking the rich" with higher marginal tax rates lowers income because they invest and creates jobs elsewher
This is stupid. There's nothing funny in it, except as a portrayal of how so many lunatic conservatives have such a distorted view of Obama. Republican Presidents have contributed substantially more to our national debt than Democratic presidents. Check the facts!
Jsarvey, perhaps you missed the Social Studies class where the teacher taught that Congress controls the budget, not the President. So your "Republican Presidents" should read "Democrat Congresses".
The current congress is racking up a deficit and exploding the debt like no others ever before them.
Sure Congress passes the budget but the President must sign it. It's pretty clear that Reagan and George W didn't care about the deficit. At least George HW showed a little more backbone but paid the price for it.
The current level of deficit spending is needed in order to stimulate the economy.
Actually it isn't necessary at all, and all it is creating is inflationary pressure. Governments don't run economies, Governments inhibit economies. You should put the partisan blinders aside and learn a few things about economics.
Clearly you are an asshole who must insert an insult into every comment that you make.
It is basic Economics 101 that there are two major ways that governments impact economies (no one said, "run" them). These are monetary policy and fiscal policy. For the post part we prefer to use monetary policy and it has served us well. In more severe downturns, we need to increase our use of fiscal policy (increase government spending, reduce taxes).
No, government cannot effectively run without capitalism.
Free markets produce wealth that restrained government taxes at a minimal level to do only what's absolutely necessary to provide "common defense" and the "general welfare" of society. Since the 1930s, government has grown beyond its Constitutional bounds to overtax wealth producers and hand over so-called entitlements to those effectively trained to suckle off the productivity of others.
Who said government could run without capitalism? Don't put words in my mouth.
Tax rates have gone down over the past few decades. Compare the maximum income tax rate today versus what it was in the 1960s.
The majority of entitlement spending by government is for social security and Medicare which goes to retirees who have paid taxes throughout their lives.
You are clearly deluded if you think that the current economic crisis is primarily the result of gov't.
Oversized government that forces banks to lend to people not qualified to pay back and other regulations that forces businesses to run two separate sets of accounting ledgers is what has contributed to the demise of the global economy.
Government stimulus doesn't cure bad economies; it only redistributes income quicker and grows government.
Milton Friedman squashed Keynesian theory on fiscal stimulus 40 years ago. Yet the Fed is aiding and abetting that failed policy.
The culpability that government has in the current economic crisis lies more in its failure to sufficiently regulate overly risky practices -- lending to those that should have never been approved, allowing financial institutions to be leveraged 50:1, deferring to private credit rating agencies, etc.
Did you think gov't should have bailed out the biggest financial institutions and automakers in our economy or should we have let those banks and companies just fail and cause economic havoc?
The govt misregulated the market in numerous, too may to account in 500 characters.
Some of the banks should have been split up and in some cases closed. Instead we get even bigger banks which have become too big to fail.
And yes, the government had no business bailing out GM, Chrysler and their workers. Now the U.S. owns banks, auto cos. and soon the entire medical system.
How is today's situation possibly more chaotic than it would have been if GM and Chrysler shut down?
So fricking what if we taxpayers temporarily own majority share of these companies in order for them to have sufficient capital to survive and rebound? Big deal. We taxpayers might even make positive return on many of these investments.
Neither company is taking the medicine necessary in today's economic reality.
As last month's falling car sales show, gov't stimulus cannot solve the underlying troubles in this economy in general or the auto industry in particular. Even $800 billion in govt debt hasn't made much of a dent.
(Note that GM could not sell its Saturn division.) The Chosen One and his Marx Brothers advisors have no clue what long-term damage has occurred and that their policies solve nothing.
You still haven't described how the "chaos" is worse.
I will admit, as does President Obama and his advisors, that there are pluses and minuses to bailing out the auto industry. You don't need to be a socialist to have come down on the side that the downside of doing nothing (causing hundreds of thousands of Americans to lose their jobs) outweighed the downsides of government intervention.
Last lesson: Massive government intervention into the private marketplace such as that approved in the last year only pertuates into decades what the market would have sorted out in a few years. The long-term pain will be much worse for EVERYBODY. Just ask those who "lived "in the Soviet Union and China during their "glory days."
Reducing taxes is the reduction of an economic inhibitor in order to afford the market more capital to heal itself. Monetary policy (raising interest rates) is adding an economic inhibitor (making capital more expensive) to slow the economy down.
Government is never anything more than an economic inhibitor. Capitalism works just fine without government. But it is a standard to reduce taxes in an economic downturn, Why are they so intent on raising taxes to new and awe inspiring heights?
Taxes and gov't spending can also create broad societal investments (such as infrastructure and innovation) that would not occur to the same extent if left to private markets.
The government contributed immensely to economic growth through massive wartime spending in WWII, land grant colleges, the GI bill, interstate highway system, National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, etc.
By your theory, economic growth would be maximized at a tax rate of zero or close to zero.
Raising taxes in an economic downturn is patently stupid. The healthcare bill contains hundreds of additional taxes and the "climate" bill has even more. Your tax "cuts" in the stumulous bill are actually "credits" to people already not paying taxes (read welfare)
Obama is not interested in economic recovery, he is interested in forcing socialism on us. Government control for all!
"Learn the laffer curve?" There you go with your obnoxious tone.
A common conservative misunderstanding of the Laffer curve is that any tax reduction results in a net increase in tax revenue. Reagonomics was supposed to balance the budget right?
What it says is that there's a point on the laffer curve which represents the maximum possible tax revenue. If above that point, lower taxes increases revenue. If below that point, lowering taxes lowers revenue.
We will never know if Reagan's original deal would have balanced the budget. Tip O'neill reneged on his promise to lower spending and took all that glorious new money poring in (due to tax cuts) and raised spending instead.
Socialism never works. Government's are greedy and exist only to extend and increase their own power.
Look up 1388, obama's youth brigade! Better known as :
The Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act
The Bill would forbid any student in the brigade to participate in engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship.
This is the exact same language that has been in previous service acts passed under George HW Bush, Bill Clinton, and George Bush. It simply ensures that our taxdollars aren't used to subsidize religious outreach. There are hundreds of faith-based organizations which receive service funding, including the Jesuit Volunteer Corps which is now part of AmeriCorps.
Mine would be like Obama is driving a 12-wheeler truck loaded with federal notes with Ben is giving a sign plackared directing him to Citi, Wells Fargo, BoA, Goldman Sachs and many other giant financial banks. With me pictured being drilled by huge tires of the truck with a sign "stop Obama", while holding a one dollar bill that says, "Obama da savior" bcuz my foot got pulverized by 13 wheeler truck. With the skid marks that says, "screw it people!" lol This would be my Capitol Hill Card Relief!
Hold up, hold up... Did you just say there were no spoofs about Bush? Oh, sure, not about the war. Just everything else he ever did, thought about, or was rumored to do.
because all black people unamiously support a black candidate? That is about as racist as it gets? Doesn't a black person have the ability for independent thought just like everyone else? Ever occur to you that all black people aren't a homogeneous voting block completely controlled by one party?
On my job, there's a lot of blacks who are very dissatisfied with Obama. In fact, a lot of them are downright disgusted with him. Surely with so many blacks who are clearly unhappy with him, there must be others who feel the same way, yet we never hear about them on the news. Why is this?
Unfortunately, the majority ARE controlled by one party. I've forgotten the exact number, but something like 96% of blacks voted Democrat. They have the right of independent thought. They just don't think independently.
beatnikjd - Take a look around, (hint: you actually have to get OFF the couch in the basement, come OUTSIDE of your parent's house and talk to people who used to be employed)
So funny, yet so true.
doodlesbutt 1 year ago
Hahahaha!
AJSensei 1 year ago
Good video and sadly true.
bertly71 1 year ago 2
ONE OF THE BIGGEST OBAMA SUPPORTERS, ALEX SINK, A RICH BANKER IS RUNNING FOR GOV. OF FLORIDA - GOOGLE "DONT LET ALEX SINK FLORIDA"
DAK7777777 1 year ago 2
LOL funny, but at same time scary because so true.
ICAUCUSREGION6 1 year ago 3
I love you Sonia!!! Go sister!!! Go!!!! I am so proud of you for standing up for our freedom!
nicolelecompte1969 1 year ago 3
I love this lady
jekelley1s 1 year ago
This is the BEST video Sonja's ever done. I LOVE it! This one, and the Race Card one totally rock. Keep hammering back at em' honey!
Shawnster65 1 year ago
priceless.Marx brothers or marxist brother
TheCoupechopper 1 year ago
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
evrlastingbeauti 2 years ago
Funny...but sad all the same. This Obama is really doing a number on our country. Feels like everyday we are getting a little bit closer to 1984.
ClutchFan1971 2 years ago 4
@ClutchFan1971 Its not just Obama, the democrats, or even the republicans. Its steady corruption picking away at the original structure of checks and balances, and the defined role of government has been so warped (by BOTH sides) that people, nor politicians understand what it means to govern.
Basicpiviot 2 years ago
Sonja, this is by far your best piece, you rock!!!
gralith 2 years ago 2
The Laffer curve demonstrates there is a sweet spot in marginal tax rates (that would be the rate on the most productive taxpayers aka the weathy) where the gov't maximizes its income.
The Bush tax cuts come pretty close to that sweet spot. Govt revenue went up afterwards and the top 5 and 10 percent who benefitted the most now pay a higher percentage of the overall income tax revenue.
"Soaking the rich" with higher marginal tax rates lowers income because they invest and creates jobs elsewher
GrandviewJunction 2 years ago 2
Obama sucks!
Sojiro176 2 years ago
all I am going to say is....LETS SEE WHERE WE ARE WHEN THE NEXT PRESIDENTAL ELECTION COMES. Some people maybe eating their own words!
JKsGirl1999 2 years ago
This is stupid. There's nothing funny in it, except as a portrayal of how so many lunatic conservatives have such a distorted view of Obama. Republican Presidents have contributed substantially more to our national debt than Democratic presidents. Check the facts!
jsarvey 2 years ago
Jsarvey, perhaps you missed the Social Studies class where the teacher taught that Congress controls the budget, not the President. So your "Republican Presidents" should read "Democrat Congresses".
The current congress is racking up a deficit and exploding the debt like no others ever before them.
Socialism doesn't work.
Lucislovechild 2 years ago
Sure Congress passes the budget but the President must sign it. It's pretty clear that Reagan and George W didn't care about the deficit. At least George HW showed a little more backbone but paid the price for it.
The current level of deficit spending is needed in order to stimulate the economy.
jsarvey 2 years ago
Actually it isn't necessary at all, and all it is creating is inflationary pressure. Governments don't run economies, Governments inhibit economies. You should put the partisan blinders aside and learn a few things about economics.
Socialism doesn't work.
Lucislovechild 2 years ago
Clearly you are an asshole who must insert an insult into every comment that you make.
It is basic Economics 101 that there are two major ways that governments impact economies (no one said, "run" them). These are monetary policy and fiscal policy. For the post part we prefer to use monetary policy and it has served us well. In more severe downturns, we need to increase our use of fiscal policy (increase government spending, reduce taxes).
Capitalism doesn't work without gov't!
jsarvey 2 years ago
Comment removed
GrandviewJunction 2 years ago
No, government cannot effectively run without capitalism.
Free markets produce wealth that restrained government taxes at a minimal level to do only what's absolutely necessary to provide "common defense" and the "general welfare" of society. Since the 1930s, government has grown beyond its Constitutional bounds to overtax wealth producers and hand over so-called entitlements to those effectively trained to suckle off the productivity of others.
The poor economy is the result of abusive govt.
GrandviewJunction 2 years ago
Who said government could run without capitalism? Don't put words in my mouth.
Tax rates have gone down over the past few decades. Compare the maximum income tax rate today versus what it was in the 1960s.
The majority of entitlement spending by government is for social security and Medicare which goes to retirees who have paid taxes throughout their lives.
You are clearly deluded if you think that the current economic crisis is primarily the result of gov't.
jsarvey 2 years ago
Oversized government that forces banks to lend to people not qualified to pay back and other regulations that forces businesses to run two separate sets of accounting ledgers is what has contributed to the demise of the global economy.
Government stimulus doesn't cure bad economies; it only redistributes income quicker and grows government.
Milton Friedman squashed Keynesian theory on fiscal stimulus 40 years ago. Yet the Fed is aiding and abetting that failed policy.
GrandviewJunction 2 years ago
The culpability that government has in the current economic crisis lies more in its failure to sufficiently regulate overly risky practices -- lending to those that should have never been approved, allowing financial institutions to be leveraged 50:1, deferring to private credit rating agencies, etc.
Did you think gov't should have bailed out the biggest financial institutions and automakers in our economy or should we have let those banks and companies just fail and cause economic havoc?
jsarvey 2 years ago
The govt misregulated the market in numerous, too may to account in 500 characters.
Some of the banks should have been split up and in some cases closed. Instead we get even bigger banks which have become too big to fail.
And yes, the government had no business bailing out GM, Chrysler and their workers. Now the U.S. owns banks, auto cos. and soon the entire medical system.
The chaos is worse now as a result.
So, what a great video!
GrandviewJunction 2 years ago
How is today's situation possibly more chaotic than it would have been if GM and Chrysler shut down?
So fricking what if we taxpayers temporarily own majority share of these companies in order for them to have sufficient capital to survive and rebound? Big deal. We taxpayers might even make positive return on many of these investments.
jsarvey 2 years ago
Neither company is taking the medicine necessary in today's economic reality.
As last month's falling car sales show, gov't stimulus cannot solve the underlying troubles in this economy in general or the auto industry in particular. Even $800 billion in govt debt hasn't made much of a dent.
(Note that GM could not sell its Saturn division.) The Chosen One and his Marx Brothers advisors have no clue what long-term damage has occurred and that their policies solve nothing.
Just a video. End story.
GrandviewJunction 2 years ago 2
You still haven't described how the "chaos" is worse.
I will admit, as does President Obama and his advisors, that there are pluses and minuses to bailing out the auto industry. You don't need to be a socialist to have come down on the side that the downside of doing nothing (causing hundreds of thousands of Americans to lose their jobs) outweighed the downsides of government intervention.
jsarvey 2 years ago
Last lesson: Massive government intervention into the private marketplace such as that approved in the last year only pertuates into decades what the market would have sorted out in a few years. The long-term pain will be much worse for EVERYBODY. Just ask those who "lived "in the Soviet Union and China during their "glory days."
What a great video! I hope she posts more.
GrandviewJunction 2 years ago 2
Reducing taxes is the reduction of an economic inhibitor in order to afford the market more capital to heal itself. Monetary policy (raising interest rates) is adding an economic inhibitor (making capital more expensive) to slow the economy down.
Government is never anything more than an economic inhibitor. Capitalism works just fine without government. But it is a standard to reduce taxes in an economic downturn, Why are they so intent on raising taxes to new and awe inspiring heights?
Lucislovechild 2 years ago
Comment removed
jsarvey 2 years ago
Taxes and gov't spending can also create broad societal investments (such as infrastructure and innovation) that would not occur to the same extent if left to private markets.
The government contributed immensely to economic growth through massive wartime spending in WWII, land grant colleges, the GI bill, interstate highway system, National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, etc.
By your theory, economic growth would be maximized at a tax rate of zero or close to zero.
jsarvey 2 years ago
Learn the laffer curve.
Raising taxes in an economic downturn is patently stupid. The healthcare bill contains hundreds of additional taxes and the "climate" bill has even more. Your tax "cuts" in the stumulous bill are actually "credits" to people already not paying taxes (read welfare)
Obama is not interested in economic recovery, he is interested in forcing socialism on us. Government control for all!
Lucislovechild 2 years ago
"Learn the laffer curve?" There you go with your obnoxious tone.
A common conservative misunderstanding of the Laffer curve is that any tax reduction results in a net increase in tax revenue. Reagonomics was supposed to balance the budget right?
What it says is that there's a point on the laffer curve which represents the maximum possible tax revenue. If above that point, lower taxes increases revenue. If below that point, lowering taxes lowers revenue.
jsarvey 2 years ago
We will never know if Reagan's original deal would have balanced the budget. Tip O'neill reneged on his promise to lower spending and took all that glorious new money poring in (due to tax cuts) and raised spending instead.
Socialism never works. Government's are greedy and exist only to extend and increase their own power.
Lucislovechild 2 years ago
So classy! Republicans had their chance. War and poverty after 2 terms.
dfwme 2 years ago
O IS PRES NOW ..You haven't seen poverty yet!
bamasace 2 years ago
Look up 1388, obama's youth brigade! Better known as :
The Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act
The Bill would forbid any student in the brigade to participate in engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship.
Look at Hitlers child brigade and compare.
warrgail 2 years ago
This is the exact same language that has been in previous service acts passed under George HW Bush, Bill Clinton, and George Bush. It simply ensures that our taxdollars aren't used to subsidize religious outreach. There are hundreds of faith-based organizations which receive service funding, including the Jesuit Volunteer Corps which is now part of AmeriCorps.
Hitler? Seriously.
jsarvey 2 years ago
a few a ha ha's
a lawl or 2
and a smile on every face.
yosoydame 2 years ago
This is hilarious and somewhere in there lies the truth.
tubergearl 2 years ago
Comment removed
warrgail 2 years ago
I'm so confused....
Is she racist now too? Because if I produced this vid, I would be fending off the racist remarks left and right.
Liberals, how does this work?
klim8hokes 2 years ago
klim: It's Chicago math.
auroraslaugh 2 years ago
"Liberals, how does this work?"
Unless you support The Anointed One in all things, you're obviously a scumbag racist.
It's very simple, in the Alternative Universe of Liberalism.
The fact that Obama & most of his ghetto scum brothers hate whites ... well, that's just irrelevant.
pilot101st 2 years ago
LOL just the point I was going to make but you beat me to it...
nineballaddict 2 years ago
And the long-legged mack daddy is in NO WAY THE LEGAL PRESIDENT OF THE USA.
We now face the worst Constitutional crisis in our history. I know not how it will turn out, but remember:
Our loyalty is to The Constitution and not to any "government" that may be allegedly formed under it.
Think about this statement very hard. It is the truth. Our loyalty is the The Constitution and to nothing but The Constitution!
chirock02 2 years ago
Right on, Sonja!
gralith 2 years ago 2
beatnikjd, you wouldnt know the truth if it slapped you in the face, sonny!!! The Marxist Brother!! LOL!! Thats some funny shizite!!
yobuttstanky 2 years ago
This is a GREAT video. The truth in it is alarming. Sonja is outstanding.
nunyabiznestoyou 2 years ago 2
Mine would be like Obama is driving a 12-wheeler truck loaded with federal notes with Ben is giving a sign plackared directing him to Citi, Wells Fargo, BoA, Goldman Sachs and many other giant financial banks. With me pictured being drilled by huge tires of the truck with a sign "stop Obama", while holding a one dollar bill that says, "Obama da savior" bcuz my foot got pulverized by 13 wheeler truck. With the skid marks that says, "screw it people!" lol This would be my Capitol Hill Card Relief!
gearzone2611 2 years ago
Marxist brother .. that line NAILED it ... lol
PLUS a "sister" with the hammer ... over the top funny!!!
99centsCHANGE 2 years ago 3
THAT WAS AWESOME!!
dee1979 2 years ago 4
ok someone owes me a new keyboard..."Marxist brother"
VideoJerk1999 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What is this? Astroturf to combat the Daily Show? It's just like the Daily Show - minus the part about being funny and providing facts.
But that's okay. Snarkism is sufficient to mobilize the free right-wing lobbyists, i mean, the teabaggers. That and some well-placed spam.
Seriously, I found this funny. I can't wait to see the hilarious spoofs of Bush starting an illegal war. Wait, there isn't one?
NakedWombat666 2 years ago
Hold up, hold up... Did you just say there were no spoofs about Bush? Oh, sure, not about the war. Just everything else he ever did, thought about, or was rumored to do.
RaistliniltsiaR 2 years ago 3
This should be titled, "black woman sells out after losing everything to disasterous right wing economic policies."
Noobtac 2 years ago
because all black people unamiously support a black candidate? That is about as racist as it gets? Doesn't a black person have the ability for independent thought just like everyone else? Ever occur to you that all black people aren't a homogeneous voting block completely controlled by one party?
Apparently not.
IdahoDigital 2 years ago 3
On my job, there's a lot of blacks who are very dissatisfied with Obama. In fact, a lot of them are downright disgusted with him. Surely with so many blacks who are clearly unhappy with him, there must be others who feel the same way, yet we never hear about them on the news. Why is this?
WinkyDink2009 2 years ago 3
Unfortunately, the majority ARE controlled by one party. I've forgotten the exact number, but something like 96% of blacks voted Democrat. They have the right of independent thought. They just don't think independently.
franssusan 2 years ago 2
Perhaps
But it isn't!
ToddonCapeCod 2 years ago
Awesome and terrifying video. I've been unemployed for four months now... But it's ok, I'm expecting my bailout money aaaaaaannnnyyyyyy second.
RaistliniltsiaR 2 years ago
beatnikjd - Take a look around, (hint: you actually have to get OFF the couch in the basement, come OUTSIDE of your parent's house and talk to people who used to be employed)
Mikeishere1st 2 years ago
Thought you might need one of these after all we need to support each other
dianadetrick 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Typical right wing drivel.
beatnikjd 2 years ago
Typical left wing response.
itachi705 2 years ago 2
Yeah...Drivel. Welcome to the Great Depression, part II. Thanks Barney Frank! Thanks Democrats! But I guess the facts...are just "drivel."
Dude, you are dumb as a bag of socks.
gippersdad 2 years ago
The Marx Brothers and a Marxist Brother! Perfect! LOL
dovie2blue 2 years ago 4
truth, can be funny
beyondalohas 2 years ago 2
may i have the one where a guy getting mirco chiped on one side and an enlarge view of the chip on the other sided?
MEGAGUY21 2 years ago
lol that would be a good one but my fav is the marxist brother one
RagingBearVideos 2 years ago
hahahah
beefking69er 2 years ago
I want one with a picture of a swine flu shot needle in his arm, but didn't see one. Can I customize my nObama card?
kinsjon 2 years ago
were can I get one of these cards?
gizmo00000000000 2 years ago
I just wish they had used the obama logo.
GBS990 2 years ago
LOL!!!!!!!
DefenseAgainstEvils 2 years ago
FREAKIN HILARIOUS!!!!!!
Krazie316 2 years ago
What's the difference between God and Obama?
God doesn't think he's Obama...
mgabbard 2 years ago 7
lol
Soulja4Alethia 2 years ago
Very noice!
JMehrman 2 years ago
Awesome.
clash360 2 years ago
smart, witty,clever...and HOT as ever
bugg255 2 years ago
It would be funnier if it wasn't true.
NoCensorshipYT 2 years ago 14
@NoCensorshipYT no way thats what makes it funny
username0727 8 months ago
OMGOSH!!! that was priceless!!! I loved it!
lauran08 2 years ago
Nice one!!!
GodGunsGutsGlory 2 years ago
Lol... Love you guys at PJTV!:)
chattingcat 2 years ago
This is so tragically going to become reality sooner than the useful idiots think. Great video fact merged with funny, nicely done.
Leavon 2 years ago
LOL nice one.
DrDissent 2 years ago
LOL, good one :)
TheMinister7 2 years ago
LOL thats ok..I think i'll stick with CASH!
jesusrules2012 2 years ago 5
Cash is no better than cards, if you think about it... Stick with gold. :)
RaistliniltsiaR 2 years ago
I totally agree. Gold is hard to chew but delicious.
NakedWombat666 2 years ago
Who's in my wallet?
What wallet?
56gig 2 years ago 18
Yah, Obama already nicked it.
dovie2blue 2 years ago